Final comments on discussion paper (July 2013)

Comments (pre-Annual 2013)

The task force needs guidance on the discussion questions posed on p.3 of their report, regarding the mixing of WEMI levels: "If the cataloger needs a structured description of a related Work, should she be allowed to add Manifestation details?" (from p.3 of the report). CC:DA members and liaisons, please post your ideas here.

I don't think allowing to add details at Manifestation level to a description of a Work is true to RDA principles or beneficial for the user. If we add information on Manifestation to a description of a Work this would make it a Manifestation of a Work, not a Work as abstract concept, wouldn't it? I agree with the statement in the report that "The cataloger could be dealing with the Work in the abstract, and not with any particular Manifestation". If we use such a level of specificity in the relationship designator (Work vs Manifestation, Work vs Expression, or Work vs Item) then we have to be true to what we describe. Otherwise, why not to use Manifestation in the description?

I think giving Manifestation details might be misleading for users as they will be directed to look for a particular edition, not abstract work.

Larisa Walsh (CC:DA), June 14, 2013

No matter how much you truncate the examples given in RDA and in the strawman proposal of "structured description of a work" and "structured description of an expression," they will still contain elements that potentially reflect details of one manifestation only. Even something as short as "Sibelius, Symphony no. 5 / James Hepokoski" reflects only one manifestation of this work if other manifestations have "Sibelius, Symphony no. 5 / J. Hepokoski" or "Sibelius, Symphony no. 5 / by James Hepokoski." Is it really logically possible to have a "structured description of a work" or a "structured description of an expression"? --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2013 (PDT)

To be clearer about this example (from RDA 25.1.1.3), this is a monograph written about the symphony, not a performance of it. --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2013 (PDT)

One of the things that the TF's discussions reveals is that the cataloger should consciously choose whether to describe a work relationship, an expression relationship, or a manifestation relationship. For example, in the example Robert cites, one might describe a work relationship if the related entity is the Symphony generally, but one might describe an expression relationship if the related entity is a particular performance of the Symphony. Describing the manifestation is the safe choice, as you KNOW that the relationship holds at that level; determining whether all manifestations of an expression or all expressions of a work share the characteristics you are describing is much more difficult.

-- John Attig (2013/06/16)

I agree with Larisa that it does not help to add information about a manifestation to a structured description of a related work or expression. If we think outside of MARC, we might see that these descriptions, eventually, could lead to “live” links to other WEMI records. If you remember the RIMMF demonstration that Deborah Fritz from a MARC of Quality did for us at the last ALA midwinter, when she catalogued first the manifestation, then the expression and work, you can easily imagine that in a record of a manifestation, a description of a related work or expression could lead to a link to the record for this work or expression. For instance, we could have a record of a manifestation with a relationship designator that says: “adaptation of (work): Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Romeo and Juliet” that could actually provide a link to the work record of S.’s Romeo and Juliet. If we had manifestation details to the structured description of the work, we make the whole process of creating WEMI relationships pointless and messy.

Robert is right, however, to wonder if we can have a “structured description” of a work and expression. Maybe for the moment the “structured description” for works and expressions should be based on information in RDA chapter 6: Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions. So for a work, the “structured description” could be as simple as author and title (what we have now in a name/title authority record). The structured description of an expression would be name/title with the added elements listed in 6.27.3. –- Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, June 17, 2013

I think it's important to note that a "structured description" is not the same as an "authorized access point" (see the breakdown of examples in the current 25.1.1.3). I personally do not understand how to provide a structured description of a work. In Robert's example above, I would almost certainly use either an AAP or an unstructured description to convey the relationship. I believe the same situation extends to expressions.

If RDA is going to continue to contain separate chapters for Related Works, Related Expressions, Related Manifestations and Related Items, then I think that we need to make clear distinctions about the descriptions that are possible in each of these specific situations.
- Glennan (PCC) 6/21/13

Comment on use of ISBD Punctuation in the examples (p. 2 of final report):

I think the examples constitute structured descriptions of related resources, so the format of the examples is addressed by RDA 0.10. Changing the format of examples in RDA is a much larger issue than just the chapters affected by this paper. -- Glennan (PCC) 6/21/13